Originally Posted by Pablo Esco Bars (Post 1124470)

From the dictionary:
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee (Post 1124473)

There are many definitions for knowledge. The most reliable comes from philosophy in general and epistemology specifically. I read a lot of philosophy and have given a lot of thought to what constitutes knowledge. The best definition, imo, is a "justified and true belief." It's not just a matter of whether what you believe is true, but why do you believe it? You have to be justified in believing it before it constitutes knowledge unto you. Otherwise it is just information.

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee (Post 1124462)

The scientific method is not knowledge. It is a method for arriving at knowledge. A proposition such as "the scientific method works" cannot constitute knowledge unto YOU until it is proven by YOU. If you make such a proposition based on having read about other people who have used the scientific method successfully, its still information to you rather than knowledge. Go do some actual experiment using the scientific method. Then you can claim to "know."

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------


No, it doesn't, unfortunately. If you have spell books, that doesn't constitute knowledge until you're actually performing the spells and find that they work. If you're doing that and claim to know spells, then more power to you. But just having read some books, whether from the "highest authorities" or not, simply means you have some information written on a page. It doesn't mean you have knowledge.

Originally Posted by Godbody (Post 1124478)

If niggas know shit and they write it down for others to learn it, it's knowledge. What you're doing is semantics. Literally. "Just because they wrote it down doesn't mean they knew what they were writing and it doesn't mean they wrote down something true bla bla"

Your logic is incredibly flawed and only works under the premise that people purposely write false shit to mislead others. Or that the MAJORITY of written information is false. Which I dont think is true. You're trying too hard to be right when you're wrong.